• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    One could argue that the embassy attack was Israel defending itself from the IRGC commander and generals that were supplying the Houthis and Hamas with intel and weapons.

    I’m not defending the attack on the embassy, since I’ve learned about civilian casualties. I’m simply saying this is a long standing conflict. Israel didn’t just come at Iran out of nowhere.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      So then in that case, Hamas attacking US embassies is completely fair game for arming Israel?

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Israel is a sovereign nation, the Houthis are not.

        Under international law, the attacks of a nation are the responsibility of the attacking nation. The same is not true for independent militant groups. For example:

        France arms Ukraine and Ukraine attacks Russia, Ukraine is responsible. Iran arms Houthis and Houthis attack Israel, Iran is responsible.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well if they do argue that, then I guess they were already at war. In which case, I guess we let them continue to “work it out”…

    • Jamil@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      No one can argue that. It’s stupidity.

      By this logic, Israel can also bomb Chinese and Russian embassies. They only did it to Iran, because they want to draw the US into the conflict.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not defending the attack on the embassy

      And yet you are.

      International law says embassies are sacrosanct. Even if there was commander and generals in there, you cannot attack first and argue self defense without a credible threat of “imminent” danger. Israel had none and has not even argued for this claim. We went over this when the US illegally assassinated Suleimani.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        No. I’m not. I’m debating the point that Israel attacked “first,” just as you said, in a 40 year long conflict.

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          That’s not what you said, you said Israel could claim justification for bombing an embassy because enemies were in it. Then you made a vague comment about how long the conflict is, as if that excuses it. If that is true, then all israeli embassies are fair game because Mosaad is in them and US embassies as well since they openly have CIA officers in them.

          Firing missiles into a country to blow up an embassy of another country is a “first” no matter what justification you or Israel can come up with.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I said “one could claim it was retaliation” referring to the Houthi Red Sea attacks. My point is this has been going back and forth for 40 years.

            • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              So the guy with a week old account is condescending. I’m pretty sure I’ve read and taught more history than you. Peace.